Well? Where's the seven pages refuting Ron Paul's idiocy? Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history and economics knows that Krugman is correct, and Ron Paul is making things up about the post-war American economy. We grew out of the Great Depression through government spending up to and including WWII, which had the fortunate side effect of being a gigantic government jobs program. Then we had decades of regulation, strong labor unions, high taxes, and those are the golden years of American history.

Then we have ahistorical assclowns like Ron Paul who looked at all that prosperity and designed a system to take it away from the majority and give it back to the robber barons of the pre-Depression economy. They lie about what actually happened, they lie or are deeply ignorant of economics and history and simple common sense. And ultimately they are sociopaths who have convinced themselves that markets are "moral" because they lack an internal awareness of the meaning of the word.

Plus, and not for nothing... taxes and regulation are at the lowest they have been in decades, so why isn't the economy booming? Ron Paul has over the last couple of decades gotten 90% of what he's wanted, and we've seen the opposite of his predictions come true. Doesn't this sort of thing remind anyone else of quack medicine salesmen who cover up the failure of their product by claiming that their victims aren't using it correctly? At some point, getting giant tax cuts should have gotten at least a little bit of growth if Paul's nonsense had any validity. Instead, we see job losses under Reagan and Bush, big job gains under Clinton, more job losses under Bush II, and then mild gains in jobs under Obama who refuses to take more than baby steps in the right direction.

BTW, if you look at the stimulus and compare it to Ron Paul's stupidity, you see some of what I was talking about with the tax cuts. Krugman and others pushed for a HUGE stimulus package, Obama went with a weak and watered down version. So what we got was weak, watered-down recovery. If he had done more stimulus, more recovery. Compare that to the lack of job growth based on tax cuts, and the fact that people like Paul stick to tax cuts as a better stimulus than spending money no matter how much it never has that effect.

Thanks for reminding me of the part of Paul's stupidity that I left out: he and his supporters are a bunch of childish, selfish, immature jackholes who want all the benefits of civilization while not wanting to accept any of the costs or responsibilities. They are in a state of constant temper tantrum about "freedom" the way a child would be, and they throw a veneer of philosophy over the top of their self-centered immaturity and pretend that it is a rational, adult position. The fact that it DOESN'T WORK is ignored, in favor of dishonest assertions that taxation is really theft, and that social responsibility is some sort of slavery.

Just like most liberals you dodged the question. A single person in NYC who earns a million dollars a year will pay $455,117.74 (nearly half) in local, state and federal income taxes. So, I will ask you again, what should the rich pay in taxes each year?

Just like most liberals you dodged the question. A single person in NYC who earns a million dollars a year will pay $455,117.74 (nearly half) in local, state and federal income taxes. So, I will ask you again, what should the rich pay in taxes each year?

I'm not dodging the question, I think you're being dishonest by asking it, especially since you have some very special and self-serving number in mind. Your number is fundamentally bogus, because the functional tax rate of millionaires is under 20% on average. Mitt Romney makes $20 million a year and pays a rate of just under 14%. He gave his children a "gift" of $100 million and they didn't pay any taxes on it.

So why don't you answer the question first? What do you think the tax rate should be, considering it is currently the lowest it has been in more than half a century? If you think that taxation is theft, then that makes your question even more dishonest.

Odd yet somehow unsurprising that he initially went out of his way to say OUR money when he actually just mean t to defend the wealthy exclusively....

ImprobableJoe wrote:

televator wrote:"Debt causes unemployment." - Ron Paul

Because thinking backwards somehow makes sense to some people.

Well, it is literally thinking backwards. It starts with tuxbox's desire to avoid his civic duty, and then reality is twisted and lies are told in order to make irresponsibility a virtue.

And that's how financial institutions, cutthroat businesses, and the people who run them still get to walk around as "model" citizens of this country. Morally depraved, perverse, sociopathic, criminals in suits and ties.

televator wrote:Odd yet somehow unsurprising that he initially went out of his way to say OUR money when he actually just mean t to defend the wealthy exclusively....

And that's how financial institutions, cutthroat businesses, and the people who run them still get to walk around as "model" citizens of this country. Morally depraved, perverse, sociopathic, criminals in suits and ties.

Well, OF COURSE! Who do you think is supposed to benefit from libertarian financial non-policy, people who actually work for a living and need their paychecks? They equate money with freedom, and gloss over the fine print where people without much money don't get much freedom. Different rules, different system of justice, just the same old "lords and serfs" business as it ever was.

televator wrote:Odd yet somehow unsurprising that he initially went out of his way to say OUR money when he actually just mean t to defend the wealthy exclusively....

And that's how financial institutions, cutthroat businesses, and the people who run them still get to walk around as "model" citizens of this country. Morally depraved, perverse, sociopathic, criminals in suits and ties.

Well, OF COURSE! Who do you think is supposed to benefit from libertarian financial non-policy, people who actually work for a living and need their paychecks? They equate money with freedom, and gloss over the fine print where people without much money don't get much freedom. Different rules, different system of justice, just the same old "lords and serfs" business as it ever was.

Oh Joe, why are you such a big meanie toward our wealthy masters? Without their grace I would not have contaminated food and Wal Mart rags to wear. Some day, they'll see fit to promote me, and I'll be able to afford many more things that aren't from a thrift store. I'll be more like them...our sacrosanct, wealthy, overlords. Oh what a dream to be "trickled down" on!

televator wrote:Oh Joe, why are you such a big meanie toward our wealthy masters? Without their grace I would not have contaminated food and Wal Mart rags to wear. Some day, they'll see fit to promote me, and I'll be able to afford many more things that aren't from a thrift store. I'll be more like them...our sacrosanct, wealthy, overlords. Oh what a dream to be "trickled down" on!

HAH!

All kidding aside, the libertarian economic and regulatory ideas don't work or even make sense. We know that if you regulate food safety, you get food safety. If you cut funding for food safety, you get less food safety. If you increase food safety regulations, you get better food safety. These are objective facts. The libertarian will tell you that even though less regulation equals less safety, and more regulation equals more safety, this is a bad situation because it interferes with "freedom". I've got to tell you, I'm more worried about my freedom from being poisoned than someone else's freedom to poison me, but I'm not a libertarian.

More importantly, libertarians reject the reality of regulation, and claim that if you get rid of all regulation and "allow the free market to be free" then there will be less pollution than under current regulations. Which is stupid beyond belief. If you get rid of the laws against murder, do you think there will be fewer killings? And don't even get me started on the whole "free market" nonsense... there's no such thing.

ImprobableJoe wrote:I'm not dodging the question, I think you're being dishonest by asking it, especially since you have some very special and self-serving number in mind.

I am not being dishonest, and my "very special and self-serving number" would be no more than 40 percent. That said, I do believe that the tax loopholes need to closed and the individual needs to pay the entire 40 percent.

ImprobableJoe wrote:Your number is fundamentally bogus, because the functional tax rate of millionaires is under 20% on average.

Funny how our President is always talking about the rich paying "their fair share" yet he took full advantage of the tax loopholes this tax season and paid an effective tax rate of just above 20 percent.

ImprobableJoe wrote:Mitt Romney makes $20 million a year and pays a rate of just under 14%.

Yeah, that is mucked up and he and others who make a living off of Capital-Gains should pay the exact same tax rate as someone who earns a real paycheck.

ImprobableJoe wrote: He gave his children a "gift" of $100 million and they didn't pay any taxes on it.

You should look into the Gift Tax law. The donee donor pays the taxes on "gift/s" and the rate is 45 percent for gifts of that amount. So the government still gets its pound of flesh.

ImprobableJoe wrote:So why don't you answer the question first? What do you think the tax rate should be, considering it is currently the lowest it has been in more than half a century? If you think that taxation is theft, then that makes your question even more dishonest.

I do not think "fair taxation" is theft. It is the cost of living a fair society, but I believe that people who work for a living no matter what income bracket should be able to keep the majority of the money they earn. I also believe the government has a responsibility to spend "our" money in a responsible way. They work for us, not the other way around.

*edited*

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine

Last edited by tuxbox on Thu May 03, 2012 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

tuxbox wrote:Nope, I meant "OUR" money. We earn it and we should be able to keep the majority of it no matter what the income bracket.

And everyone does, and the very rich keep more or less the same percentage as the working poor or somewhat more than the working middle. So you're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist in the current system, which is part of why I keep calling it stupid.

tuxbox wrote:I am not being dishonest, and my "very special and self-serving number" would be no more than 40 percent. That said, I do believe that the tax loopholes need to closed and the individual needs to pay the entire 40 percent.

So you were being ignorant rather than dishonest, because your statement was nonsense without the clarification that everyone has loopholes, especially millionaires. Find me your imaginary person who makes bi-weekly paychecks that add up to a million dollars, who owns no property, has no investments, owes no debt, has no insurance... who just gets a paycheck and spends the entire paycheck and has zero assets at the end of the year.

That's a person who doesn't exist, so you were stating a number that has no relation to reality. So were you being dumb or dishonest?

You know what I've noticed? Ron Paul supporters have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT RON PAUL STANDS FOR. Look at tuxbox... disagrees with what Ron Paul stands for, comes here to pretend Ron Paul has a valid position. It is just like religion, when you think about it, where people just pick and choose so much that what they believe has little relation with their holy book, but they still embrace the label and the superficial aspects of it.

Don't tell me, tuxbox... you also think Ron Paul is a supporter of drug legalization.

ImprobableJoe wrote:You know what I've noticed? Ron Paul supporters have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT RON PAUL STANDS FOR. Look at tuxbox... disagrees with what Ron Paul stands for, comes here to pretend Ron Paul has a valid position. It is just like religion, when you think about it, where people just pick and choose so much that what they believe has little relation with their holy book, but they still embrace the label and the superficial aspects of it.

Don't tell me, tuxbox... you also think Ron Paul is a supporter of drug legalization.

Just because you inferred that I am a Ron Paul supporter (which I am not) does not make it so. I am neither a Republican nor a Libertarian and I never vote party lines. My question to you was very fucking simple and posed that question because you brought up the 1950's high taxes for rich people which was 91 fucking percent. By the early 60's less than 600 people actually fell into that tax bracket. The Kennedy tax cuts in the mid 60's was responsible for the economic boom not a 91 percent tax for the rich. You have still failed to answer the question. I can only assume that you just want to be a fucking dick and that is fine, but I am done wasting my time with you.

tuxbox wrote:Just because you inferred that I am a Ron Paul supporter (which I am not) does not make it so. I am neither a Republican nor a Libertarian and I never vote party lines. My question to you was very fucking simple and posed that question because you brought up the 1950's high taxes for rich people which was 91 fucking percent. By the early 60's less than 600 people actually fell into that tax bracket. The Kennedy tax cuts in the mid 60's was responsible for the economic boom not a 91 percent tax for the rich. You have still failed to answer the question. I can only assume that you just want to be a fucking dick and that is fine, but I am done wasting my time with you.

No, I'm done with your cowardly ass. "Oh, no... I don't take a position, I'm 'independent'! I came onto a Ron Paul thread where people were talking about Ron Paul and argued with people who were attacking Ron Paul, but I don't actually support Ron Paul. I use libertarian talking points, but I'm not taking a side!"